Interesting play............

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

However, INT cannot be dismissed simply because the offense's transgression resulted in the ball heading toward a defender and I believe that is what some have done in this thread.

Agreed.

[wadeintothem]

For ASA Discussion Purposes:

On this play I am judging INT and I believe the only ruling you can support by rule is INT. This is not a blocked ball and I do not think there is justification for only killing the play unless you revert to 10.1 for whatever reason...

I am not nostradamus, so I must factor the fact that a retired offensive player intentionally altered the path of the ball while defense was attempting to make a play and in fact had a play. INT, R2 out, R3 to 2B and I become the hated blue for not the first time and wont be the last. This is Interference, plain and simple.

[Linknblue]

When we call "DEAD BALL!". I've got interference on the "one with the bat" don't we also have an out? Wouldn't that be the closest one to home?

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Linknblue

When we call "DEAD BALL!". I've got interference on the "one with the bat" don't we also have an out? Wouldn't that be the closest one to home?

yep... thats our out.

[Cajun Reff]

Originally Posted by Linknblue

When we call "DEAD BALL!". I've got interference on the "one with the bat" don't we also have an out? Wouldn't that be the closest one to home?

Point of clarification: R1 had already scored (she is the one who hit the ball with the bat) and there was no attempted play on R2 at the plate, the pitcher was trying to recover the ball to stop the runners, but she had no play on R2 or R3

If I called interference and called the girl with bat (R1) out, that ends the inning with R2 steaming for home and R3 rounding 3rd. The OC would have lost her mind and I had no idea if the rules justified an interference ruling or not.

based on this:

INTERFERENCE. The act by an offensive player or team member, umpire or spectator that impedes, hinders, or confuses a defensive player attempting to execute a play. Contact is not necessary.

a case could be made for interference but it would be flimsy at best. All R1 did was tap the ball back towards the Pitcher with a bat, she didnt confuse her at all

After reading the excellent replies by both perspectives I feel like calling a dead ball and sending R2 back to 3rd and R3 back to 2nd I made the fairest decision.

Thanks for the replies

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Cajun Reff

If I called interference and called the girl with bat (R1) out, that ends the inning with R2 steaming for home and R3 rounding 3rd. The OC would have lost her mind and I had no idea if the rules justified an interference ruling or not.

I dont make my rulings based on reaction.

But I guess thats why I will leave a wake of crying girls lying on the field and laugh loudly while I do so...

After reading the excellent replies by both perspectives I feel like calling a dead ball and sending R2 back to 3rd and R3 back to 2nd I made the fairest decision.

Maybe you did... for Utrip. Maybe they dont have a rule governing it, maybe you can just make stuff up so you dont make a coach mad.

ASA, the only justification for a non call would be Mike's point.. leaving it live would hurt more than the INT call. In other words, you wouldnt want the INT to punish the defense. The OC can go kick rocks because its the OC's fault. No one cares about her, this is her problem.

I doubt the non-call would apply to this scenario. There are no rules to justify killing it and putting the runners back. The only things that can be supported by rule IMO are INT or non-call.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

But I guess thats why I will leave a wake of crying girls lying on the field and laugh loudly while I do so...

What do you mean "will"? Don't you mean "already have"?

[Dholloway1962]

USSSA Rule Book...Rule 8 Baserunning. Section 18 Any runner is out when...

AC. When the offensive team causes a blocked ball.
EFFECT: The runner closest to home is out.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

What do you mean "will"? Don't you mean "already have"?

...and will again.....bwaahahahahahaha........

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

For ASA Discussion Purposes:

On this play I am judging INT and I believe the only ruling you can support by rule is INT. This is not a blocked ball and I do not think there is justification for only killing the play unless you revert to 10.1 for whatever reason...

I am not nostradamus, so I must factor the fact that a retired offensive player intentionally altered the path of the ball while defense was attempting to make a play and in fact had a play. INT, R2 out, R3 to 2B and I become the hated blue for not the first time and wont be the last. This is Interference, plain and simple.

There is also the point that the offense should know better than to touch a live ball. The offense screwed up this play, not the defense and if there was any possibility that there could have been a play......